Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Duke 2.0]

I see both sides. You have every right to possess a firearm.

But the real question is: why should you have the right to bear arms? It only ends up with a bunch of actual accidents where people shoot family members and strangers simply because something made them afraid.

I don't really want to get involved and will present no position in this argument, but we gotta call out how silly this right here is. It's pretty staggeringly short-sighted on the issue.

[Eagle_eye]

How is it silly? There have been many incidents where people were shot with no justification. Some guy shot a door to door salesman because he felt threatened a few weeks ago.

[Sensei]

Having continued to read California's assault weapons ban, I find a lot of problems with it. Most of those are for another thread, but there's one major thing I'd like to bring in here just as an anecdote:

The Legislature finds a significant public purpose in
exempting from the definition of "assault weapon" pistols that are
designed expressly for use in Olympic target shooting events.
Therefore, those pistols that are sanctioned by the International
Olympic Committee and by USA Shooting, the national governing body
for international shooting competition in the United States, and that
were used for Olympic target shooting purposes as of January 1,
2001, and that would otherwise fall within the definition of "assault
weapon" pursuant to this section are exempt, as provided in
subdivision (c).

The important thing here, is that they basically recognize that weapons banned under their law are reasonable things to want for target shooting. So, who are they to say that SOME things are acceptable for target shooting and some are not? I understand the sentiment but governmental bodies are not known for doing a good job with this sort of thing, even with the best of intentions by all legislators involved.

It continues:

Any of the following pistols, because they are consistent with
the significant public purpose expressed in subdivision (b):
MANUFACTURER MODEL CALIBER
BENELLI MP90 .22LR
BENELLI MP90 .32 S&W LONG
BENELLI MP95 .22LR
BENELLI MP95 .32 S&W LONG
HAMMERLI 280 .22LR
HAMMERLI 280 .32 S&W LONG
HAMMERLI SP20 .22LR
HAMMERLI SP20 .32 S&W LONG
PARDINI GPO .22 SHORT
PARDINI GP-SCHUMANN .22 SHORT
PARDINI HP .32 S&W LONG
PARDINI MP .32 S&W LONG
PARDINI SP .22LR
PARDINI SPE .22LR
WALTHER GSP .22LR
WALTHER GSP .32 S&W LONG
WALTHER OSP .22 SHORT
WALTHER OSP-2000 .22 SHORT

Here it ALSO finds a bunch of guns which would be illegal under the regulations, but shouldn't be. Seems like a pretty briefly researched list to me; and certainly unfair to, say, competing manufacturers of similar guns- you know they won't be busy updating this list or anything. Heck, what if some legislator had wanted Walther's guns out, in favor of a competitor? These, I think, are all pistols which either have foregrips/grippable barrels, magazines which contain more than 10 rounds, or both, for the record. Most of them are .22 caliber but there's a few considerable more lethal .32s in there.

[Duke 2.0]

 It's a sweeping statement on an issue that has been through a lot of debate and clearly involves quite a bit of complexity. It's ignoring every other aspect of the problem and secondary aspects of the guns rights issue.

[Nadaka]

I see both sides. You have every right to possess a firearm.

But the real question is: why should you have the right to bear arms? It only ends up with a bunch of actual accidents where people shoot family members and strangers simply because something made them afraid.

I don't really want to get involved and will present no position in this argument, but we gotta call out how silly this right here is. It's pretty staggeringly short-sighted on the issue.

How is it silly? There have been many incidents where people were shot with no justification. Some guy shot a door to door salesman because he felt threatened a few weeks ago.

It is the assertion that the ONLY result of the right to bear arms is a bunch of accidents and/or murders.

That is clearly, completely, objectively false to a ridiculous degree.

[Levi]

Out of curiosity, what are the positive things that come out of the right to arms?  I can't think of a reason for owning a gun that doesn't involve killing something.

[Sensei]

I see both sides. You have every right to possess a firearm.

But the real question is: why should you have the right to bear arms? It only ends up with a bunch of actual accidents where people shoot family members and strangers simply because something made them afraid.

I don't really want to get involved and will present no position in this argument, but we gotta call out how silly this right here is. It's pretty staggeringly short-sighted on the issue.

How is it silly? There have been many incidents where people were shot with no justification. Some guy shot a door to door salesman because he felt threatened a few weeks ago.

It is the assertion that the ONLY result of the right to bear arms is a bunch of accidents and/or murders.

That is clearly, completely, objectively false to a ridiculous degree.

I'll say I agree with you, but that's not going to convince anyone who doesn't already.

Insofar as I have the power to do so, I'd like to ask everyone not to make posts like this in this debate, it's not going to further anything.

Actually, don't make posts like this anywhere on the internet.

[kaijyuu]

Self defense is pretty much the only justification with any weight. But of course, 99% of the time you'd be better off handing over your wallet or whatever anyway; the times where your (or someone else's) life is threatened and won't be saved by complying with the criminal's demands are extremely rare. Pulling out a gun is better than pulling out a knife or punching them, but inferior to giving up.

[nenjin]

An M16 is a fully automatic weapon, an AR-15 is the semi-automatic variant for civilian use.

Which can be modified with a $30 conversion kit to be fully auto. And where do you buy these conversion kits which turn legal weapons into illegal ones.....?

Gunshows.

[Frumple]

Out of curiosity, what are the positive things that come out of the right to arms?  I can't think of a reason for owning a gun that doesn't involve killing something.

Mostly hunting, which can be a pretty heavy food supplement for a fair number of families -- I'm part of one, even though I'm not venison eater, the availability of the meat has helped out parts of my family get through some tough times a bit healthier and better fed. It's definitely less expensive over a long period, especially if it involves grandfathered in weapons.

Lastly, I see there is a strong anti-gun sentiment among many of you. I understand, really! But I would like you to know that shooting for hunting or sport is much more common than you probably realize. You might even be surprised to see who you know has a gun! In fact, I know a lot of gun owners who don't even vote republican (though I'm not gonna lie, there's some right-wing nuts too and if you visit a gun show you'll definitely see a republican majority).

I'll bite on this, though, heh. I'm quite heavily in favor of much stronger gun regulation -- as a gun owner, as someone that has been through a concealed carry program (though yet to send in the paperwork, due to the processing fee), and as someone that stands to inherent probably a good dozen or so more firearms within the next decade.

Living as I have, in the area I'm in, and going through those programs... there are people out there, in substantial number, that have no goddamn right to have their hands on a weapon, and the only reason the death toll isn't higher than it is, is sheer damned luck. As it is, irresponsible gun ownership claims too many lives, and we really do have the lackadaisical controls we have on who gets them to blame.

Got nothing against sport shooting, nothing against hunting, nothing, t'be upfront, against firearms for house defense. Completely support gun ownership for people who can demonstrate reason and responsibility. My problem is with handing the damn things out like candy to any drunken blindfolded idiot* that sleepwalks through the (might as well be frakking nonexistent) regulations we've supposedly got vetting gun owners.

A lot of that just has to do with being in Florida, though. There might as well not be any controls on the damned things down here, from everything I've seen on the ground.

Most of th'rest of what you said I'm on board with, though, 'cept the bit with only criminals getting powerful guns part. Think that line of thinking's been addressed in the thread already.

*Edit: Okay, a bit of hyperbole here. I never have seen anyone that was blindfolded manage to purchase a firearm. Legally blind, yes, but not blindfolded. Drunk and stupid stand, both concurrently and not.

[Sensei]

I'm sure there are a minority of people who have some legitimate reason to worry about someone attacking them with only the motivation of bringing them harm, but just like I said people aren't out murdering each other with AR's, they aren't carrying them around for defense either. Some people use them for hunting (a legitimate use) and mostly for sport. Depending on whether you like the military, you could argue that many programs which teach civilians to use AR's (specifically service rifles) for military use later are a legitimate purpose (I forget the name of the program). However, I think these don't usually require the civilians in question to personally own a gun at all.

I'd say that using firearms for sport is just as legitimate as fencing, but frankly if you disagree that's an entire other argument that I don't want to bother with.

However, keep in mind the effects of SB249 are only going to be that in order to use an AR-15 in California, you will need one of those weird grips and you can't have some other things on the gun like a flash suppressor (which does not make the gun more dangerous and is not to be confused with a silencer). That is the ONLY change. It terms of pure dangerousness, the weird-grip AR-15's will definitely be more powerful than bullet-button AR-15s.

Disregarding the gun debate in general, I cannot see why anyone would support SB249 in particular except as sort of "Stop those gun-owners in any way we possibly can" attitude, in this case by causing moderate inconvenience and slight financial burden to a large group of sports shooters. The important thing is, to me, that was certainly not the purpose of the bill when it was written. The bill will not achieve its purpose and should not be passed.

That said, I don't think Calfornia will actually be taking away that many AR-15's, given how incredibly easy it is to sideskirt the regulations with literally a wedge shaped piece of plastic.

NINJA EDIT:

An M16 is a fully automatic weapon, an AR-15 is the semi-automatic variant for civilian use.

Which can be modified with a $30 conversion kit to be fully auto. And where do you buy these conversion kits which turn legal weapons into illegal ones.....?

Gunshows.

Jesus christ, what gun shows do you go to? A kit like that is way illegal. Furthermore, like I've said if you can already get THOSE illegal kits, why does making some other small gun feature illegal help?

[nenjin]

I'm sure there are a minority of people who have some legitimate reason to worry about someone attacking them with only the motivation of bringing them harm, but just like I said people aren't out murdering each other with AR's, they aren't carrying them around for defense either.

The number of people I now know with AR-15s in their homes has tripled in the last 5 years. My neighbor has owned AKs for the last 20 years. When I ask them why they feel the need to own an AR 15 (and a 9mm Beretta, and a shotgun, and long guns...) they always say "The world is gettin' dangerous." And these are people I consider sane, smart, rational people. I really think the fantasy nightmare of one guy squaring off against 5 in a battle to save their home and family has basically been burned into my generation's psyche.

So my perspective is not "it's just huntin' and fun." To me it's a power thing when it comes to suburban white guys packing concealed carry at large and an assault rifle for their home.

Jesus christ, what gun shows do you go to? A kit like that is way illegal. Furthermore, like I've said if you can already get THOSE illegal kits, why does making some other small gun feature illegal help?

The mod for the AR15 apparently isn't that hard. But I'll admit, that was a bit of an exaggeration.

The legislation (and I'm not saying I agree with them) seems to be trying to use tactical modifications to classify weapons. And possibly send the political message that guns aren't toys that you accessorize like your phone or your car. They're undoubtedly overreaching. It's California, after all. I have mixed feelings about that. They should properly understand what different mods do and fairly assess whether banning it or that classification of weapon even makes sense. A pistol grip is not a reason to ban a weapon.

On the other hand, I do think they're trying to get to the heart of the matter, which is the large disconnect between what weapons are ostensibly for, and how they're actually marketed and perceived and used by the public. We call it gun porn now for a reason, ya know? And that's started to creep me out, especially as I'm getting older and have grown up with a whole generation of guys raised on shooting shit IRL and video games, the zombie apocalypse, war movies, several predicted RL apocalypses and 3 wars of our very own. Hell, I've done my own fair share of gratuitously firing off guns for no reason other than it feels good and you like watching shit get plugged full of holes.

That probably doesn't make us any more unique than the 'nam generation or the WWII generation....but it makes me want the whole obsession with a personal armory dialed down, or more appropriately, dialed back to where it was. This is all kind of fresh in my mind because a friend JUST came over the other day with his new pistol as his newest addition and while I did the typically "yeah cool man, sweet" and held it and yadda yadda, I didn't truly feel happy for him. Just more unsettled.

[sneakey pete]

The number of people I now know with AR-15s in their homes has tripled in the last 5 years.

I don't think that you can particularly judge a trend from people in your circle, as other factors could easily be at work, eg people getting older and richer. I mean, among my friends the rate of car ownership has gone up from almost none to almost everyone having a car. That doesn't mean that people are buying cars at an alarming rate, it means that we used to be teenagers who weren't allowed to drive them

[nenjin]

That's a fair point. But I'm surrounded by gun enthusiasts now. Within a week at my new job a guy had a special ordered rifle delivered to work and we pawed over that thing too. I don't know if I'm ok with the concept that gun ownership correlating to wealth, sex and age in America is a good thing.

[mainiac]

Lastly, I see there is a strong anti-gun sentiment among many of you. I understand, really!

Just because someone is pro-gun control doesn't mean they are anti-guns.  I'm a gun owner and I love going out and making the skies rain with clay pigeon fragments.  But I still think it's a no brainer that we regulate guns.  They're dangerous!  If you want to use a very dangerous device then you shouldn't feel entitled to convenience.

And in my mind saying that there will still be AR-15s designed to exploit loopholes just means there are more loopholes that should be closed.  Either banning assault weapons is a good idea or a bad idea on the merits.  Just because someone has a loophole in the law doesn't change the merits of the ban.